Existing Gameplay Changes by jwheath

[obtuse ember]

Welcome @tight heron! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion is not shared with SMG.
It is solely for the RISK Community to discuss ideas & provide constructive feedback!

[tight heron]

There is no value in continuing to fight AI/zombie players which earn no skill points.  Many players forfeit at this stage, resulting in their win/loss records being misleading.

[atomic steppe]

Yes but it should be an option to turn on/off for tournaments and crazy folk

[lunar pecan]

Some players want to take everything - better as an option imo

[tight heron]

Yes. This could be an optional setting.

[noble gust]

Yeah, I'm going with No. Depending on bot type, players may still want the challenge to beat the bot after the players are defeated to get a win on the record.

[tight heron]

Having this as an optional setting that can be turned on/off is probably the better approach.  Many players do not like having to battle opponents (for potentially an extended time) that are not going to earn them any skill points.  However, it is reasonable to speculate that some may enjoy a protracted battle.

If the option is enabled then the game would end and a win recorded once all human opponents have been eliminated.

[cedar horizon]

Outside of fixed zombies I have never seen this as an issue. IMO if you can’t beat a bot you don’t deserve a win in your stats. You already get all the rank points for beating the human players so this literally only changes the win stat

[tight heron]

It is typically not a matter of “can you beat a bot.”  It is about how long it takes.  In many cases, bots are largely ignored during a game while human opponents are battled.  In some cases, they can grow very large.  While they can typically be defeated, this can sometimes add a considerable amount of time to the game, without any skill points being awarded for the effort.  The result is that many forfeit once all human opponents are eliminated.  It also creates the scenario where one could reach grandmaster without ever winning a game, which I think diminishes the rank.

[coral brook]

If you play with bots you have to deal with bots. That simple.

[tight heron]

If the argument is that bots are players and should be treated just as humans in order to record a win, I am fine with that.  However, if that is the case, they should count towards skill points as well.  The current system requires one to work to defeat the bot (or zombies), but provides no reward.  This is why many forfeit once all humans are eliminated.  This contributes to bad stats and diminishes the value of rank (when someone with a losing record can be an expert/master/grandmaster).

[tight heron]

This option would also be more consistent with the original RISK rules.  For 1v1 RISK, the setup includes a neutral third Army.  This Army does not need to be defeated to receive the win.  Of course, there were no AI players (or zombies) in original RISK FFA games. See page 12 (Winning).
https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf

[lunar pecan]

For the placement of neutral troops these were set one at a time by each player (ensuring it was as balanced / as disruptive for both players)
It'd more be in line with 1v1 (but with a required AI in each game) - but that'd mean auto placement gone entirely for it

[tight heron]

Yes.  For 1v1 to be more authentic to the original rules, there should be a third AI Army with auto placed troops.  These troops would not participate in the battle, but would simply take up space on the board in order to reduce the play order advantage.

Or the “neutral” Army troops could be placed manually alternating between the two players. Similar to semi-auto placement.

[stable yew]

im surprised so many people vote no, also this suggestion was posted on my birthday lol

[stable yew]

But I don't "play with bots", it's not my fault that some players don't ready up and I should get to save my time bc they didn't

[stable yew]

I agree with this, they should either be counted towards skill points AND wins, or neither.

[stable yew]

We can very easily have both and I don't understand why anyone is saying we can't? You could always give players an option to end the game when all humans are eliminated, like a popup that says; "all humans have been eliminated, would you like to continue the game or end it now?"

similar to like how bloons tower defense when the game ends allows you to "play it in freeplay mode or end the game", it makes it more engaging and enjoyable and you're just worsening players experiences and enjoyment and driving them away from playing more if they feel forced to eliminate bots for 0 reward.

There should either be:

• A: an actual reward for eliminating bots when there's no human players left, maybe you get like 3-5 gems for a bot elimination in ranked or something, there's all sorts of ways to give a reward even if you wanna make it a tiny one
  OR
• B: you shouldn't have to eliminate the bots to get a win. You put in the work to beat all the human players and win the lobby, why are you getting punished for doing that and having to spend time beating a bot for no reward?

Imagine how dreadful bloons tower defense would be if after beating the game you were forced to play it in freeplay until you died or else it would be recorded as a "loss" on your profile.

It's just as dreadful in risk as it would be in bloons tower defense. The players experience should be improved, not worsened or at the very least the customisation/option to improve someone's experience without detracting from anothers, which is what doing either A or B would do. You don't have to remove players desire to beat the whole map for the purpose of saving other players time and not punishing them for winning the game, which is what the current system with the exact way it's implemented basically does if there's a bot left and no other humans.

[tight heron]

I agree.  It makes no sense to say bots that should be treated like human opponents to receive the win, but then not award any skill points for the time/effort required to defeat them.

If you are not going to earn skill points for defeating a bot, then the game should end once all human opponents are defeated.
 
OR
 
If you are going to require that bots be defeated (just like a human opponent) in order to receive the win, then they should earn skill points just like a human opponent.

[stable yew]

^

[cedar horizon]

How would you suggest earning rp against bots in a ELO system where bots have no rp? In addition by that logic every player who died before a bot would lose points due to that

[tight heron]

Bots currently factor into the Elo point distribution when they take the place of a human opponent.  However, to me, not awarding bots points, and ending the game once all human opponents have been eliminated, is just as good of a solution.  The status quo – which requires substantial extra time/effort with no reward, in my view, is the worst solution.

[coral brook]

That is a ready up and not game end problem. Don't use a different issue to excuse an bad idea.